View Full Version : And the Winner Is...
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 16:25
War in Iraq won? That's un-possible!
Tiny article that 75% of the forum will hate.
A US soldier is safer in the "war" zone in Iraq than he or she would be in the city of Chicago today
The Lag Between Networked and Disconnected (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/11/lag-between-networked-and-disconnected.html)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/SR5yeVVzBYI/AAAAAAAAFVk/Zuq9BQXwYdM/s320/iraqikidflag.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/SR5yeVVzBYI/AAAAAAAAFVk/Zuq9BQXwYdM/s1600-h/iraqikidflag.jpg)Greyhawk is right (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/031142.html#com031142), folks who are just realizing the war in Iraq has been won are arriving to the party after the keg has been tapped.
Greyhawk on 7/17/08, "we won (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/030556.html)."
And for the record, ID on 7/16/08 (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/calm-before-strategic-storm.html).
We believe the US has already won in Iraq. People may accuse this blog for being overly optimistic, but we believe we are being realistic. There are many, many reasons, too many to cover, why we believe this, but one anecdotal statistic sticks out that implies the war is over. The (http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=7-2008)death toll of US troops in Iraq in July (http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=7-2008) through right now is eight. That is one fewer soldiers than died in the one firefight in Afghanistan earlier this week. A US soldier is safer in the "war" zone in Iraq than he or she would be in the city of Chicago today, which interestingly enough, may be where some Iraq veterans find themselves in the near future (http://www.nbc5.com/news/16901117/detail.html). This is also why we believe the trip to Iraq by Barack Obama isn't a fact finding mission to determine what next, rather we expect him to pledge US support for the Iraqi's through the upcoming election, talk about how good things are in Iraq, shift the discussion towards Afghanistan, and we won't even be surprised at all when Obama returns home to declare victory in Iraq...
The war in Iraq is over, it isn't war anymore, it is reconstruction and security through one more major election, then what we believe can be described as a "fading phase" will begin that disappears US troops gradually from the everyday lives of the Iraqi people.OK so Obama hasn't declared Victory yet, but either Bush does, or Obama will. I don't know that I can take credit for being a sage though, I read Greyhawk and at the time was probably reading the same tea leaves he was.
As for Afghanistan, everything said on the blog in that July post still applies today.
What do y'all think?
By most objective measures we won the war in 2003. You don't really "win" an occupation, that's not how things work.
m52nickerson
11-15-2008, 16:42
How many of Iraq's people died in the same time frame........sine US soldiers have armor and live on protected bases.
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 16:47
By most objective measures we won the war in 2003. You don't really "win" an occupation, that's not how things work.
Ok - it seems like we have "won" the occupation. So what you are saying is that by no standard can we ever win the Iraqi conflict?
We can never win now because of semantics?
When our primary objective for the occupation is complete we have "won". If fatalities are down in Iraq and we can scale down forces while the Iraqi government runs itself in a just and responsible manner...
WIN!
EDIT: It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war)
seireikhaan
11-15-2008, 17:05
Tuff- Please do not troll the members of the forum is such a manner by indicating they want us to lose.
Secondly- We haven't "won". Only once we can fully pull out of Iraq, and the country fully stands on its own two feet, can we state to have "won" the occupation. Are we winning? The situation would seem to be in that favor. However, lets not forget the number of militia groups that are essentially being paid to keep their heads down, as well as those being paid to help in actual combat. Once Iraq can show itself to have a government capable of flexing its muscle and putting the militias down, through whatever mean the Iraqis deem acceptable, then it can truly take the final steps to a "win" for us.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-15-2008, 17:11
Isn't the reason both candidates agreed to withdraw us troops in the near future because violence was winding down?
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 17:37
Isn't the reason both candidates agreed to withdraw us troops in the near future because violence was winding down?
Yes. I just want to hear you guys say it.
It is tricky; We can't leave until we've won and we can't win until we've left.
I like to think more simplistically about this situation.
When our primary objective for the occupation is complete we have "won". If fatalities are down in Iraq and we can scale down forces while the Iraqi government runs itself in a just and responsible manner...
And you have just demonstrated the rather arbitrary nature of declaring a win in the current occupation. What, exactly is our "primary objective"? Is it to create a stable democracy? Is it to create an environment with a certail level of violence? Is it to improve the standard of living in Iraq? Is it to heal the differences between Sunni, Shia and Kurd?
Iraq is a bottomless hole that would happily swallow all of our good intentions. As I said, we won the war already, five years ago. If you feel that we've passed some golden mark that allows you to declare victory again, then by all means, do so. I'll spring for confetti if you'll buy the champagne.
It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war)
Too funny! From your link:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/War.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 17:45
Iraq is a bottomless hole that would happily swallow all of our good intentions. As I said, we won the war already, five years ago. If you feel that we've passed some golden mark that allows you to declare victory again, then by all means, do so. I'll spring for confetti if you'll buy the champagne.
Life is a string of victories and defeats. We've won once, we are winning again at a new challenge. Iraq is far from bottomless.
The world will be better off once we get the new Iraq off of the ground.
Iraq is far from bottomless.
Heh, tell it to the Brits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Mesopotamia).
Louis VI the Fat
11-15-2008, 19:13
Yes. I just want to hear you guys say it. Iraq can never be 'won' anymore. For this to happen, Iraq would need to be proven a serious international security threat in 2003, and had to be turned into a stable democracy at relatively modest expediture in life and finances somewhat soon after the invasion. The latter is no longer possible, the former seems very doubtful.
So no, at the - totally unforeseen - costs of $2 trillon*, 4000 US lives, the pr disaster of Abu Graibh, the shame that mercenaries brought to US standing in the world, and five years of extreme internal violence, Iraq does not at all resemble a win followed by ever more wins against new challenges.
To present Iraq as a string of victories upon victories reeks of fanboyism, of partisan blindspots. Perhaps the last two US administrations made some, shall we say, mistakes and miscalculations regarding Iraq?
However, yes, compared to the unmitigated disaster that the Iraq invasion looked like in from 2004 up to last year, the situation has improved dramatically. Who knows, turning Iraq into some sort of stable, relatively peaceful country seems not impossible, or even unlikely, anymore. This is an achievement in its own right. Cause for optimism too.
Anti-Bush partisanship that refuses to acknowledge the successes that Bush II had in cleaning up the mess from Bush I reeks of partisan blindspots as well.
*$2 trillion. That would pay for the financial bail out program, and for national healthcare, and would still leave enough to save GM, Ford and Chrysler. All this was spend on an imminent danger that was not there. Some win.
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 19:20
To present Iraq as a string of victories upon victories reeks of fanboyism, of partisan blindspots. Perhaps the last two US administrations made some, shall we say, mistakes and miscalculations regarding Iraq?
To present it as a string of defeats reeks of what?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-15-2008, 20:24
If you buy $500 million dollars worth of lottery tickets you can't "win" the lottery.
EDIT: It seems the word "war" has a more expansive meaning link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war)
This link of yours is the freakiest thing I've seen all day. First it told me there were no definitions for "war," then it listed twelve, and now it's trying to relate to me in some weird way I can't fathom ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/WarWisconsin.jpg
LOL@ "TAKE THAT COMMIE DEFEATIST FRENCHMEN!"
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 21:11
If you buy $500 million dollars worth of lottery tickets you can't "win" the lottery.
Sure you can.
Sure you can.
The point is, was it worth it?
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 21:29
The point is, was it worth it?
Spending $500 million dollars to win a jackpot of $500 million dollars is a nonequivalent comparison. It implies that freedom for 30,000,000 people has a dollar value and that we have met it.
I believe that a stable Iraq without tyrannical rule will be more rewarding than many of us can imagine. For the United States, for Iraq, and for people all over the world.
I'm no stickler for a particular brand of democracy, only that people can appeal to a government that abhors arbitrariness and that answers in a real and reviewable way to its entire constituency.
I think that we need to find the victories in Iraq particularly because it has cost so many so much and is intertwined with an honorable objective.
Spending $500 million dollars to win a jackpot of $500 million dollars is a nonequivalent comparison.
I always though lottery's were around 1 million. Hence the "500 million for 1 million".
I believe that a stable Iraq without tyrannical rule will be more rewarding than many of us can imagine. For the United States, for Iraq, and for people all over the world.
Why's that? Why is Iraq so damn special that it's put above places like Sudan where people have been suffering for years? We could've done a damn lot more good helping poor nations get back on their feet. I mean, with all the money we spent on Iraq, we could've been helping out the starving people in the Congo and end the Darfur genocide.
I think that we need to find the victories in Iraq particularly because it has cost so many so much and is intertwined with an honorable objective.
To find non existant weapons?
Which actually raises the question, when did Iraq stop being about the Weapons that we went in for and start becoming the great crusade of liberation? Was it around the "Mission Accomplished" mark?
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 21:58
I always though lottery's were around 1 million. Hence the "500 million for 1 million".
Lottery value varies
Why's that? Why is Iraq so damn special that it's put above places like Sudan where people have been suffering for years? We could've done a damn lot more good helping poor nations get back on their feet. I mean, with all the money we spent on Iraq, we could've been helping out the starving people in the Congo and end the Darfur genocide.
Iraq is special for many reasons. For the ideological reasons it has feet to stand on when we help it up.
Which actually raises the question, when did Iraq stop being about the Weapons that we went in for and start becoming the great crusade of liberation? Was it around the "Mission Accomplished" mark?
When we realized that there were no WMD's. We went in for a number of other reasons, all of which have been consistently articulated for many years.
Security from WMD proliferation was one of the primary objectives and the objective that best helped sell the war to the American people. I beleived then as I blieve now that the war in Iraq has been worth the cost.
Iraq is special for many reasons.
Those being?
For the ideological reasons it has feet to stand on when we help it up.
And again, all the money we spent on Iraq, we could be spending getting poorer nations on their feet. But we had to go find those weapons- I MEAN LIBERATE THE MIDDLE EAST FROM HITLER.
Tuff- Please do not troll the members of the forum is such a manner by indicating they want us to lose.
Secondly- We haven't "won". Only once we can fully pull out of Iraq, and the country fully stands on its own two feet, can we state to have "won" the occupation. Are we winning? The situation would seem to be in that favor. However, lets not forget the number of militia groups that are essentially being paid to keep their heads down, as well as those being paid to help in actual combat. Once Iraq can show itself to have a government capable of flexing its muscle and putting the militias down, through whatever mean the Iraqis deem acceptable, then it can truly take the final steps to a "win" for us.
By those standards we have never won WWII. The war in Iraq was won, the occupation and stabalization of the country though is a different matter. I'll agree though that it's getting alot better there, and hopefully with continued support it will stand on it's own. With Obama having won the presidency though I doubt we'll stay. He'll try and abandon them as quickly as possible, leaving the monsters we loosed to tear that country apart, what a guy:2thumbsup:.
CountArach
11-15-2008, 23:48
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/mission-accomplished-1.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 23:56
With Obama having won the presidency though I doubt we'll stay. He'll try and abandon them as quickly as possible, leaving the monsters we loosed to tear that country apart, what a guy:2thumbsup:.
I don't think so. I think it will be the difference between stopping at the end of the yellow light or at the beginning of the red light.
I believe that we will be there as long under Obama as we would have been under McCain. I believe that we will still have little consultant forces in Iraq for some time. Obama will start to pull out slightly before McCain would have.
Obama isn't stupid, but I won't defend his constituency that called for immediate withdrawl.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-15-2008, 23:56
Sure you can.
Then why doesn't bill gates buy a bunch of lottery tickets?
ICantSpellDawg
11-15-2008, 23:59
Then why doesn't bill gates buy a bunch of lottery tickets?
Ask yourself again what you are comparing. Then ask if you want to stand by your analogy.
You could have just said "we've over paid", but then you'd get into an argument that put a physical price tag on a metaphysical value.
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/mission-accomplished-1.jpg
Nice picture, taken at the end of the Iraq war after the defeat of Sadam's forces and begining of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That is mission accomplished is it not? The enemy was defeated, his country occupied, that is victory. Occupation and insurgency is not a continuation of the war against Sadam's forces. Or are you trying to suggest that Sadam's army wasnt defeated, that the insurgency is a continuation of the defense of Sadam's military?
I don't think so. I think it will be the difference between stopping at the end of the yellow light or at the beginning of the red light.
I believe that we will be there as long under Obama as we would have been under McCain. I believe that we will still have little consultant forces in Iraq for some time. Obama will start to pull out slightly before McCain would have.
Obama isn't stupid, but I won't defend his constituency that called for immediate withdrawl.
I truly hope that will be the case, but Obama still wont give much credit to the effectiveness of the surge.
I truly hope that will be the case, but Obama still wont give much credit to the effectiveness of the surge.
Everybody loves to go on about the Surge, nobody wants to mention the Sunni Awakening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_awakening).
War in Iraq won? That's un-possible!
Tiny article that 75% of the forum will hate.
Why exactly would we hate it? I have heard these claims and implications that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq want the Coalition to lose or are somehow supporters of Saddam or Al Qaeda made with depressing regularity over the last 6 years. Are you seriously saying that you still don't understand the reasons why so many people were opposed to the Iraq war?
Still, the apparent progress in Iraq is certainly good news. A Pyrrhic victory, which is the best that can be achieved now, is certainly better than a defeat, and a stabilization of the situation in Iraq to the point where we can withdraw significant numbers of troops would allow us to focus on winning the real battle in Afghanistan, which should have been the focus all along.
I'm not quite sure of the cause for the triumphalism however. There's still plenty of danger of things going horribly wrong in Iraq so to be claiming the war is "won" does rather smack of counting chickens before they are hatched. And even the situation does continue to improve, it still wouldn't be a vindication of the initial invasion or the Bush doctrine; my objections to the war were always more fundamental than simply the fact it was going badly.
Compared to the situation a few years ago I would consider the current one a major succes. Credit where it's due.
CountArach
11-16-2008, 09:35
Nice picture, taken at the end of the Iraq war after the defeat of Sadam's forces and begining of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That is mission accomplished is it not? The enemy was defeated, his country occupied, that is victory. Occupation and insurgency is not a continuation of the war against Sadam's forces. Or are you trying to suggest that Sadam's army wasnt defeated, that the insurgency is a continuation of the defense of Sadam's military?
:laugh4:
The mission: Find WMDs.
Mission accomplished? Give me a break.
:laugh4:
The goal: Find WMDs.
The mission: topple saddam
Mission accomplished? Yessiree.
The goal: oops, sorry
fixed :bow:
Oh and this is where you cry oil, hey thanks america! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f20_1226167703
CountArach
11-16-2008, 10:02
fixed :bow:
The story about us being there to topple Saddam only came about after it was obvious that there were no WMDs.
The story about us being there to topple Saddam only came about after it was obvious that there were no WMDs.
Hardly obvious. He destroyed the bulk of them after 1991 but what kind of evil dictator are you if you don't save a few for rainy days?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-16-2008, 16:27
Ask yourself again what you are comparing. Then ask if you want to stand by your analogy.
You could have just said "we've over paid", but then you'd get into an argument that put a physical price tag on a metaphysical value.
Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.
CrossLOPER
11-16-2008, 16:47
Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.
That does not sound very ideologically valuable. :smartass:
ICantSpellDawg
11-16-2008, 16:58
Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.
So your argument is that because other things cost money, any money spent on the war in Iraq is wasted in the wrong direction. What was an acceptable price tag for the war in Iraq?
Free nations with un-obstructive governments will benefit from disease control the most and be able to perpetuate it beyond the acute western intervention. Spread the freedom first.
LittleGrizzly
11-16-2008, 17:57
It depends on why the hell we went in there to be honest, in terms of the war on terror its a disiaster, Al Qaeda were enemy's with Saddam and had basically nothing to do with Iraq, now look at AQ in iraq, its a loss on that front
We replaced saddam at huge cost and have a potentially stable Iraq now, slight success....
WMDs... need i say more....
At the end of the day taking it all into account i don't now if i would declare victory... a somewhat stable iraq does seem possible, civil war isn't inevitable anymore and the death toll seems to have slowed somewhat, not exactly a victory but something good at least..
WMDs... need i say more....
Hiroshima mon amour
CrossLOPER
11-16-2008, 18:24
Hiroshima mon amour
What does that movie have to do with anything?
ICantSpellDawg
11-16-2008, 19:11
It depends on why the hell we went in there to be honest, in terms of the war on terror its a disiaster, Al Qaeda were enemy's with Saddam and had basically nothing to do with Iraq, now look at AQ in iraq, its a loss on that front
We replaced saddam at huge cost and have a potentially stable Iraq now, slight success....
WMDs... need i say more....
At the end of the day taking it all into account i don't now if i would declare victory... a somewhat stable iraq does seem possible, civil war isn't inevitable anymore and the death toll seems to have slowed somewhat, not exactly a victory but something good at least..
Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?
CrossLOPER
11-16-2008, 19:34
Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?
So now we're basing a foreign policy on..... hypothetical stuff?
What does that movie have to do with anything?
What's it to you how I adress LittleGrizly?
CountArach
11-16-2008, 21:51
What's it to you how I adress LittleGrizly?
:laugh4:
Kralizec
11-16-2008, 22:02
The message that is vindicated is that even though it was wrong to invade Iraq in the first place, once it's done it's morally required and possible to create a new state that's stable and more benign than Saddam's regime. Dubya was wrong, and the "defeatists" were too (that includes the Obama we saw until about a year ago)
:laugh4:
The mission: Find WMDs.
Mission accomplished? Give me a break.
Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.
Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.
Germany wasnt completely pacified when the time the surrender was signed, in fact it was a long time till it was. But that did not mean the allie's had not achieved victory over Germany.
The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.
ICantSpellDawg
11-17-2008, 03:42
Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.
Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.
Germany wasnt completely pacified when the time the surrender was signed, in fact it was a long time till it was. But that did not mean the allie's had not achieved victory over Germany.
The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.
We'll have alot of fun with Democrats in the White House. They've had 8 years of no-holds-barred, viscous criticism; as is their right.
They should prepare to defend the crown - it is a tough job.
CountArach
11-17-2008, 06:29
Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.
I only take that view when I feel like debating on somebody else's terms. That was not our goal and it never has been. it is just a convenient excuse to keep soldiers there...
Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.
Sooo... that would make it... our goal? :idea:
The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.
The invasion was a success. The war is not over and will not be until the last soldier leaves.
LittleGrizzly
11-18-2008, 04:48
Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?
The only thing i can think you mean is it was worth all the money to remove saddam just in case... which doesn't seem to convincing...
Tribesman
11-18-2008, 10:19
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
winner :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
what a pile of tripe
Iraq has been won if you redefine the vast majority of the objectives set out by the US at the start of the war , just like the surge has been a success if you ignore nearly all of the aims of the surge .
I like how the blogger says you are just one more major election away from victory , hmmmmmm..... one more election ......that was supposed to be in october wasn't it , it didn't happen did it , why didn't it happen ?
But its OK because they are having an election , they have set another date , though it isn't going to be the major election that they are supposed to have already had is it , can anyone explain why the major election isn't happening ?
Once you can explain that you should be able to understand why the claim of a win is such a joke .
Nice blog though Tuff , go through the archives and see how many times that blog has declared victory since 2003 .:yes:
The war in Iraq was won, the occupation and stabalization of the country though is a different matter.
That is where you are wrong Tex , the stabilisation of Iraq was the major objective of the war ...an Iraq that is free and democratic , an Iraq that doesn't have torture and exectution of dissidents , an Iraq that isn't a threat to its neighbours , an Iraq that isn't a refuge for terrorists , an Iraq that is a beacon that shines as an example throughout the region .
BTW now that the new revised SOFA has got cabinet approval , does the fact that the cabinet wouldn't give their approval until Sistani said it was OK mean that this "democracy" is really a theocracy like Iran with an Iranian backed mullah running the show as supreme leader ?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.